United Nations Adopts Historic Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons

At approximately 11AM on July 7, 2017, following a recorded vote
of 122 states in favor, 1 opposed (Netherlands in opposition, on behalf
of all NATO states), and 1 abstention (Singapore), Ambassador Elayne Whyte Gomez,
Costa Rican Ambassador to the UN in Geneva, and President of the
“United Nations Conference to Negotiate a Legally Binding Instrument to
Prohibit Nuclear Weapons, Leading Towards their Total Elimination,”
announced the adoption of this treaty, which had been awaited for 70
years, the legally binding norm prohibiting nuclear weapons.
Following Ambassador Whyte’s announcement, the entire assembly of
ambassadors, other delegates and non-government organizations in
Conference Room 1 immediately stood, many embraced and all 122 States in
support exultantly applauded this historic and long overdue achievement
by the majority of member states of the United Nations, none of whom
possess nuclear weapons, and all of whom are unified in seeking to end
the reign of terror imposed on the world by certain of the states
possessing nuclear weapons.
Excerpts from the preamble to this landmark treaty state:
“The States Parties to this Treaty,

PP1: Determined to contribute to the realization of the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,
PP2: Deeply concerned about the catastrophic humanitarian
consequences that would result from any use of nuclear weapons, and
recognizing the consequent need to completely eliminate such weapons,
which remains the only way to guarantee that nuclear weapons are never
used again under any circumstances,
PP4: Cognizant that the catastrophic consequences of nuclear weapons
cannot be adequately addressed, transcend national borders, pose grave
implications for human survival, the environment, socioeconomic
development, the global economy, food security and the health of current
and future generations, and have a disproportionate impact on women and
girls, including as a result of ionizing radiation,
PP5: Acknowledging the ethical imperatives for nuclear disarmament
and the urgency of achieving and maintaining a nuclear-weapon-free
world, which is a global public good of the highest order, serving both
national and collective security interests,
PP9: Basing themselves on the principles and rules of international
humanitarian law, in particular the principle that the right of parties
to an armed conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not
unlimited, the rule of distinction, the prohibition against
indiscriminate attacks, the rules on proportionality and precautions in
attack, the prohibition on the use of weapons of a nature to cause
superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering, and the rules for the
protection of the natural environment,
PP10: Considering that any use of nuclear weapons would be contrary
to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, in
particular the principles and rules of international humanitarian law,
PP11: Reaffirming that any use of nuclear weapons would also be
abhorrent to the principles of humanity and the dictates of public
conscience,
PP14: Concerned by the slow pace of nuclear disarmament, the
continued reliance on nuclear weapons in military and security concepts,
doctrines and policies, and the waste of economic and human resources
on programmes for the production, maintenance and modernization of
nuclear weapons,”

The 24 paragraphs of the preamble set forth incontestable reasons for
the imperative and immediate adoption of this treaty by all member
states of the United Nations. Reference to the full text of this treaty
makes this imperative explicit, and in great detail.
The operative section of the treaty includes 20 Articles. Article 1, entitled “Prohibitions” states:

Transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other
nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive
devices directly or indirectly;

Receive the transfer of or control over nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices directly or indirectly;

Use or threaten to use nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices;

Assist, encourage or induce, in any way, anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Treaty;

Seek or receive any assistance, in any way, from anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Treaty;

Allow any stationing, installation or deployment of any nuclear
weapons or other nuclear explosive devices in its territory or at any
place under its jurisdiction or control.”

Although none of the states possessing nuclear weapons participated
in the negotiations leading to the adoption of this treaty, it is,
nevertheless a major achievement of the United Nations, and a
fulfillment of one of the most important sections of the United Nations
Charter. It is the expectation of those member states who participated
in this long and grueling process culminating in the successful adoption
of this treaty, that the very establishment of this treaty provides a
legal norm which will exert significant pressure upon the states
possessing nuclear weapons, and places the nuclear weapons states in de
facto violation of international law. This newly adopted United Nations
based legal norm stigmatizes the nuclear weapons states precisely for
their possession of these ultimate weapons of mass destruction.
During the September 26, 2016 meeting calling for this treaty, it was
emphasized that there are treaties prohibiting the possession and use
of biological weapons, there are treaties prohibiting the possession and
use of chemical weapons, but at that time there was absolutely no legal
prohibition against the possession and use of the most devastating and
horrific of all weapons of mass destruction ever devised by the human
species, nuclear weapons. At that time powerful calls for this just
adopted treaty were made by many states, in particular, forceful and
eloquent speeches by South Africa, Sweden and numerous others.
On October 27, 2016 the UN General Assembly voted on Resolution L.41,
to convene negotiations in 2017 on a “legally binding instrument to
prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination.” It
is of great significance that, alone among the states possessing nuclear
weapons, only the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea voted “yes,” in
support of these negotiations to create a “legally binding instrument
to prohibit nuclear weapons,” which is powerful and virtually
incontestable evidence that North Korea’s possession of nuclear weapons
is purely and exclusively defensive.The Press Statement by the US, UK, and France
At 12:51 AM on July 7, a joint press statement was issued by the
Ambassadors of the United States, the United Kingdom and France, and
reads:

“France, the United Kingdom and the United States have
not taken part in the negotiation of the treaty on the prohibition of
nuclear weapons. We do not intend to sign, ratify or ever become party
to it.”

The statement then comments, irrationally, and absurdly, that the new
treaty will create “even more divisions at a time when the world needs
to remain united in the face of growing threats, including those from
the DPRK’s ongoing proliferation efforts.
This treaty offers no solution to the grave threat posed by North
Korea’s nuclear program.” No sane person would consider that the tiny
number of defensive nuclear weapons allegedly possessed by the
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea could possibly be a threat in any
way comparable to the more than 15,000 advanced, sophisticated nuclear
weapons possessed by the US, the UK and France, a nuclear arsenal
capable of obliterating all life on earth. The exploitation of the
DPRK’s tiny defensive weapons as a cynical justification for retaining
the gargantuan arsenals possessed by the authors of this press statement
also reveals dangerous paranoia by the most militarily powerful nations
on earth. Indeed, even The New York Times, on July 9, page 10
acknowledges that:

“During the Korean War, North Korea was hit with
thousands of tons of American bombs. The conflict technically continues,
and North Korea claims it needs a robust defense program to protect
itself in case of a renewed American attack.”

It is surprising that the U.S., the U.K. and France have issued a
statement flaunting their violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
treaty: they are required by Article 6 of that treaty “to pursue
negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation
of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament,
and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and
effective international control,” which is precisely what the new Treaty
on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons constitutes.
The authors of this press statement evidently consider themselves
above international law, and not beholden to any legal restrictions on
their use of force. With this press statement, the US, the UK and France
have forfeited moral legitimacy, and as permanent members of the
Security Council are divested of any authority to sanction North Korea.
Further, they should themselves be sanctioned for their violation of the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Their indifference to this new
treaty’s basis in international humanitarian law, one of the treaty’s
pillars, gives the lie to their pretense of concern for humanitarian
considerations which they frequently cite, deceptively, during their
speeches at the Security Council.
But July 7, 2017 will remain a pivotal date in the history of the
United Nations, the day on which the majority of countries of the
developing world, and many of the responsible and mature nations of the
“developed world” have confronted the nuclear states with the
uncivilized character of their possession of nuclear weapons, and the
moral and practical imperative of divesting themselves of these insane
instruments of horror.

Carla Stea is Global Research’s correspondent at United Nations Headquarters, New York, N.Y.